Author Topic: Crispy Theory  (Read 2837 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2022, 07:07:PM »
Asked her few days back , waiting






Are you two Siamese twins by any chance ?

Offline Munksa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2022, 07:09:PM »





Shut up you !

Rude but expected. Horrible!

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2022, 07:09:PM »

Offline Munksa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2022, 07:10:PM »
It's about halfway down here: https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1

Thanks Steve, will have a read 😁

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2022, 07:13:PM »
That's a beautiful photo of you Cutie. Nice face

PS... I am not a lesbo

How about bi?  Best of both worlds  ;)

Offline Munksa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2022, 07:16:PM »
How about bi?  Best of both worlds  ;)

Ehhhh???  No I love opposite sex too much.

Offline Munksa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2022, 07:18:PM »
It's about halfway down here: https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1

Thanks Steve, CT says, " Myall reported seeing an 'unidentified male' at this time which ties in with the figure moving in the master bedroom. At court this was dismissed as being" .

Not saying Myall's didn't say , I don't know. But source where he said this would have been good.

Offline Munksa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2022, 07:40:PM »





Are you two Siamese twins by any chance ?

No! Cerberus actually and you are included

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2022, 08:04:PM »

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2022, 10:05:AM »
Hey Steve

You got a source?

It's an unidentified male and it's on here somewhere but it's at an early time. From what I recall it's some time between 3.45am-3.55am. I used to wonder whether it referred to JB turning up to meet them. Mike Tesko also used to claim that this officer (or another officer first on the scene) requested fingerprints to be taken, in the room where the possible sighting took place. I cannot recall whether there was a document in question that was produced to evidence that.

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2022, 10:18:AM »
It's an unidentified male and it's on here somewhere but it's at an early time. From what I recall it's some time between 3.45am-3.55am. I used to wonder whether it referred to JB turning up to meet them. Mike Tesko also used to claim that this officer (or another officer first on the scene) requested fingerprints to be taken, in the room where the possible sighting took place. I cannot recall whether there was a document in question that was produced to evidence that.

So the male figure is nothing to do with the 'trick of the light/movement' at the window?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2022, 10:20:AM »
It's an unidentified male and it's on here somewhere but it's at an early time. From what I recall it's some time between 3.45am-3.55am. I used to wonder whether it referred to JB turning up to meet them. Mike Tesko also used to claim that this officer (or another officer first on the scene) requested fingerprints to be taken, in the room where the possible sighting took place. I cannot recall whether there was a document in question that was produced to evidence that.


I believe there is some confusion here. Lookout has said that "an unidentified male" was referred to. She is correct. However, the "UM" to which she referred, wasn't seen in an upstairs window. He was the "hunched man" seen walking away at some point in the proceedings. I believe the "Was it?"?"It was" sighting has become morphed into "an unidentified male".

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2022, 10:22:AM »
So the male figure is nothing to do with the 'trick of the light/movement' at the window?


Absolutely nothing. As far as I'm concerned, they're two separate incidents.

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2022, 10:31:AM »

Absolutely nothing. As far as I'm concerned, they're two separate incidents.

Thank you.  So Lookout is providing misleading info yet again!

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Crispy Theory
« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2022, 11:22:AM »
So the male figure is nothing to do with the 'trick of the light/movement' at the window?

Not sure tbh. But it may be worth pressing Mike regarding the alleged fingerprint request.